South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

SamuraiBlue said:

I believe pushing back is a reacting response which only happens when the first push had been intiated. To my eyes this whole mess happened when PRC first declared the 9 dash line and started occupying the area through force.

Click to expand...

"Declaring 9 dash lines" is a lot different than when the other players started it by building guard posts upon reefs. Your eyes are too focus on the China at fault.

SamuraiBlue said:

I believe pushing back is a reacting response which only happens when the first push had been intiated. To my eyes this whole mess happened when PRC first declared the 9 dash line and started occupying the area through force.

Click to expand...

Blue, your original statement is preserved above in thread #442, where you blamed China as the only offending party. Had you said "pushing pack," then you would be on more solid ground. I'm willing to take your word you meant to say "pushing back," that's why I asked you to clarify. We could intensely disagree, but that doesn't mean we can't debate with civility. Note my heated exchanges with Brumby in this thread, and yet there's a modicum of mutual respect.

You also said problems started with Communist [in name only] China's 9DL, and that's demonstrably false. Current SCS sovereignty disputes only heated up after UNCLOS went into effect, causing claimants to file papers with the UN. After that, events started to take on its own momentum.

SamuraiBlue said:

Does any of the exampled you mention have anything to do with SCS?
If not then it has nothing to do with the present situation at hand.

Click to expand...

The colonial powers, US for Philippines, France for Vietnam, didn't object when ROC published its ownership of the islands in SCS.

Blackstone said:

Your statement was in context to China opting out of the arbitration portion of UNCLOS. By opting out, China decline the obligation of being involuntarily hauled into the IJC, but it also gives up the benefit of hauling others by the same means.

Click to expand...

The above is clearly not a statement that I made and is your construction. I would ask you to point out specifically where it was made as you said everything is documented.

I believe the following is what you are holding me accountable for double standards in terms of "rights"

In my view that is simply disingenuous of China of taking the benefits and not the obligations.

Click to expand...

Benefits are derived from "rights". In principle they are immutable and the benefits automatically flow from the rights. In other words, it is independent of behaviour or action (with exceptions like conditional rights). Obligations by nature like behaviour are dependent on actions to discharge. They are separate concepts. Obligations doesn't change the nature of "rights". For example, a salaried employee would continue to draw salary per employment contract irrespective of performance as an obligation. Obviously failure to perform over time has consequences but the employee's rights are protected by statue or contract. The performance can be subject to critique but the rights cannot be abrogated.

So coming back to the part where I am commenting on China being disingenuous it is connected to its behaviour and not rights. I am being consistent. I would also like to draw on the following comments made by Ambassador Koh of Singapore who was the last President of UNCLOS III and I quote " Although the Convention consists of a series of compromises, they form an integral whole. This is why the Convention does not provide for reservations. It is therefore not possible for States to pick what they like and disregard what they do not like. In international law, as in domestic law, rights and duties go hand in hand. It is therefore legally impermissible to claim rights under the Convention without being willing to assume the correlative duties," This was the spirit of the Convention. It still baffles me to-date why the right to opt out was introduced subsequently. I have not been able to locate any legal commentary regarding this presumably subsequent development.

Brumby said:

The above is clearly not a statement that I made and is your construction. I would ask you to point out specifically where it was made as you said everything is documented.

I believe the following is what you are holding me accountable for double standards in terms of "rights"

Benefits are derived from "rights". In principle they are immutable and the benefits automatically flow from the rights. In other words, it is independent of behaviour or action (with exceptions like conditional rights). Obligations by nature like behaviour are dependent on actions to discharge. They are separate concepts. Obligations doesn't change the nature of "rights". For example, a salaried employee would continue to draw salary per employment contract irrespective of performance as an obligation. Obviously failure to perform over time has consequences but the employee's rights are protected by statue or contract. The performance can be subject to critique but the rights cannot be abrogated.

Click to expand...

You do Bill and Hillary Clinton proud on paring words. Taken out of context, even the word "is" can be manufactured into different meanings. Let's use the "reasonable person" standard to judge what you said. Most reasonable people reading your short paragraph (referenced below in blue) would draw the conclusion you were specifically talking about China opting out of UNCLOS arbitration, and you deemed it "disingenuous" or illegitimate not because it's illegal under the treaty, but because of your own sense of how you want UNCLOS enforced. By that definition, you hold nations that opt out (China) to higher standards.

In my view that is simply disingenuous of China of taking the benefits and not the obligations. One of the driving force behind UNCLOS was the constant disputes arising between states driven by historic claims and UNCLOS recognised this as a problem to world peace and by general consensus dealt with it as embodied in the provisions. Whilst I acknowledge China's right as a sovereign nation to opt out, such action also undermines the very essence of the convention. It is like agreeing to an employment contract and accepting vacation days; salary and stock options whilst opting out on responsibilities and work hours. It is like having the cake and eating it.

Click to expand...

So coming back to the part where I am commenting on China being disingenuous it is connected to its behaviour and not rights. I am being consistent. I would also like to draw on the following comments made by Ambassador Koh of Singapore who was the last President of UNCLOS III and I quote " Although the Convention consists of a series of compromises, they form an integral whole. This is why the Convention does not provide for reservations. It is therefore not possible for States to pick what they like and disregard what they do not like. In international law, as in domestic law, rights and duties go hand in hand. It is therefore legally impermissible to claim rights under the Convention without being willing to assume the correlative duties," This was the spirit of the Convention. It still baffles me to-date why the right to opt out was introduced subsequently. I have not been able to locate any legal commentary regarding this presumably subsequent development.

Click to expand...

By your own words in the first sentence, you hold China's action of legally, ethically, and publicaly opting out of UNCLOS as disingenuous behavior. And then you lament the final draft of UNCLOS III does indeed allow nations to opt out of portions it doesn't like. I get it, you prefer the original version without ability to opt out, but that's not what the final treaty says.

Blackstone said:

Blue, your original statement is preserved above in thread #442, where you blamed China as the only offending party. Had you said "pushing pack," then you would be on more solid ground. I'm willing to take your word you meant to say "pushing back," that's why I asked you to clarify. We could intensely disagree, but that doesn't mean we can't debate with civility. Note my heated exchanges with Brumby in this thread, and yet there's a modicum of mutual respect.

You also said problems started with Communist [in name only] China's 9DL, and that's demonstrably false. Current SCS sovereignty disputes only heated up after UNCLOS went into effect, causing claimants to file papers with the UN. After that, events started to take on its own momentum.

Click to expand...

You're just making a hair splitting argument. As for civility, I really do not consider a statement like "a nation takes advantage of its power to pursue its national interests" civil that's like a man in a nice suit with a calm smile flipping out a gun to show his intent.
Like I advised earlier just admit upfront that PRC is intimidating smaller neighboring nations for their own selfish interest without remorse or sincerity.

Interesting development, as the highest ranked Japanese Admiral outlined possible Naval patrols in the SCS. If things really go swimmingly, maybe we'll see lots of Japanese ships sailing up and down the South China Sea. Who knows, there might even be new bases for the resurgent Japanese military. >>>>> FLAME BAIT REMOVED <<<<<

Japan's Top Military Officer: Joint US-Japanese Patrols in South China Sea a Possibility

Japan’s highest ranking military officer reiterated that Tokyo would consider joining U.S. Forces in conducting patrols in the South China Sea, the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

reports today.

According to Admiral Katsutoshi Kawano, chief of the Joint Staff of the Japan Self-Defense Forces, Japan remains deeply concerned over China’s recent constructions of artificial islands in the South China Sea.

While noting that China’s activities have created “very serious potential concerns” for Tokyo, he also emphasized that as of now there are no concrete plans for the Japan’s Maritime-Self Defense Force (JMSDF) to patrol the 3,500,000 square kilometers (1,400,000 square miles) of the South China Sea:

Of course, the area is of the utmost importance for Japanese security. We don’t have any plans to conduct surveillance in the South China Sea currently but depending on the situation, I think there is a chance we could consider doing so. (…)

In the case of China, as we can see with the South China Sea problem, they are rapidly expanding their naval presence and their defense spending is still growing. Also because there is a lack of transparency, we are very concerned about China’s actions.

Admiral Kawano was appointed Chief of Staff of the Joint Staff Council in October 2014. In April this year, the United States and Japan

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

a set of guidelines for U.S.-Japan defense cooperation that included bilateral pledges towards safeguarding sea lines of communications. “The alliance with the U.S. is our foundation. That’s how we build deterrence,” Kawano

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

The United States military apparently would support Japan’s move into the South China Sea. “I view the South China Sea as international water, not territorial water of any country, and so Japan is welcome to conduct operations on the high seas as Japan sees fit,” noted Admiral Harry Harris, the head of the U.S. Pacific Command, earlier this month in Tokyo.

As one of colleagues pointed out last month (see:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) a number of obstacles still would have to be overcome in order for joint U.S.-Japanese patrols in the South China Sea to become reality. These include, among other things, revised domestic legislation and successfully negotiating an agreement with Manila over access to Philippine military bases for Japanese aircraft and vessels in order to be capable of patrolling larger stretches of ocean in the South China Sea.

There is also the question of capacity within the JMSDF and whether it could keep up a regular patrol schedule given the current size of the Japanese Navy. As I have noted before (see:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), the JMSDF is a highly capable navy and it is technologically more advanced, more experienced, and more highly trained than its main competitor – the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).

Yet, in the long-run, the JMSDF and the Japanese Coast Guard (JCG) – Tokyo’s principle enforcer of maritime law – are at a relative disadvantage if one looks at the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

of China, which is gradually shifting the regional maritime balance in Beijing’s favor.

Click to expand...

Patrolling around the sea doesn't mean one is not defending their home land. As to the Moniker MSDF does it really matter? Self Defense Force fits Japan has not engaged in any major offensive operations since the end of the second world war. The organization defines its own mission with the name defense of Japanese interest, the Imperial Japanese Navy was the naval arm of the Imperial Japanese Empire, after 1945 though the Emperor became a constitutional monarchy. The official name of Japan changed to The State of Japan. So resurrection of the IJN would not fit. But again its only a name.
I mean plenty of national army's call them selves the Peoples Liberation Army but have never liberated anyone.
The Salvation Army has no military functions.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Patrolling around the sea doesn't mean one is not defending their home land. As to the Moniker MSDF does it really matter? Self Defense Force fits Japan has not engaged in any major offensive operations since the end of the second world war. The organization defines its own mission with the name defense of Japanese interest, the Imperial Japanese Navy was the naval arm of the Imperial Japanese Empire, after 1945 though the Emperor became a constitutional monarchy. The official name of Japan changed to The State of Japan. So resurrection of the IJN would not fit. But again its only a name.
I mean plenty of national army's call them selves the Peoples Liberation Army but have never liberated anyone.
The Salvation Army has no military functions.

Click to expand...

You're probably right, with the exception lots of Chinese might point to the PLA kicking out last vestiges of colonialism from China as liberation. And if you didn't mean to include China's PLA in your post, then I withdraw my statement.